BackgroundVaccination is currently the most effective means of preventing influenza infection. Yet evidence of vaccine performance, and the impact and value of seasonal influenza vaccination across risk groups and between seasons, continue to generate much discussion. Moreover, vaccination coverage is below recommended levels.MethodsA model was generated to assess the annual public health benefits and economic importance of influenza vaccination in 5 WHO recommended vaccination target groups (children 6 – 23 months of age; persons with underlying chronic health conditions; pregnant women; health care workers; and, the elderly, 65 years of age) in 27 countries of the European Union. Model estimations were based on standard calculation methods, conservative assumptions, age-based and country-specific data.ResultsOut of approximately 180 million Europeans for whom influenza vaccination is recommended, only about 80 million persons are vaccinated. Seasonal influenza vaccination currently prevents an annual average of between 1.6 million and 2.1 million cases of influenza, 45,300 to 65,600 hospitalizations, and 25,200 to 37,200 deaths. To reach the 75% vaccination coverage target set by the EU Council Recommendation in 2009, an additional 57.4 million person would need to be vaccinated in the elderly and other risk groups. By achieving the 75% target rate set in EU-27 countries, average annual influenza- related events averted would increase from current levels to an additional +1.6 to +1.7 million cases, +23,800 to +31,400 hospitalization, +9,800 to +14,300 deaths, +678,500 to +767,800 physician visits, and +883,800 to +1,015,100 lost days of work yearly. Influenza-related costs averted because of vaccination would increase by an additional + €190 to + €226 million yearly, in vaccination target groups.ConclusionsFull implementation of current influenza vaccination recommendations of 75% vaccination coverage rate (VCR) in Europe by the 2014–2015 influenza season could immediately reduce an important public health and economic burden.

IntroductionNew vaccines are being developed to improve the efficacy of seasonal influenza immunization in elderly persons aged ≥65 years. These products require clinical and economic evaluation to aid policy decisions.MethodsTo address this need, a two-part model has been developed, which we have applied to examine the potential clinical and economic impact of vaccinating elderly persons with adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aTIV) relative to conventional trivalent (TIV) and quadrivalent (QIV) vaccines. We compared outcomes in the US population for (1) aTIV in persons aged ≥65 years and QIV in all other age cohorts; (2) QIV in all cohorts; (3) TIV in all cohorts. Low, average, and high intensity seasons with low, average, and high vaccine match scenarios were compared. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted within each discrete scenario to explore the impact of variation in model inputs on potential outcomes.ResultsAssuming current vaccination coverage rates in the US population with (a) 25% better efficacy of adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted vaccine against any strain and (b) 35% better efficacy of non-adjuvanted vaccine against matched B versus mismatched B strains, use of aTIV in persons aged ≥65 years and QIV in persons <65 years could reduce influenza cases by 11,166–1,329,200, hospitalizations by 1365–43,674, and deaths by 421–11,320 versus use of QIV in all cohorts. These outcomes are reflected in a corresponding increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 3003–94,084. If the prevalence of mismatched influenza B was >54.5% of all circulating strains, use of QIV in all cohorts would offset the clinical benefits of aTIV. Elderly aTIV or QIV vaccination was associated with improved outcomes over non-adjuvanted TIV in many of the scenarios, particularly in low match seasons of any intensity. Total cost savings (including direct and indirect healthcare costs plus productivity impacts) with aTIV in the elderly versus QIV in the whole population ranged from $27 million (low intensity, low match) to $934 million (high intensity, high match). Univariate sensitivity analysis of relative vaccine prices in the average intensity, average match scenario indicated that aTIV could be marginally cost saving relative to QIV at the currently published Medicare price for influenza vaccines offering enhanced efficacy in the elderly. Elderly vaccination with aTIV was associated with a higher overall cost compared with TIV in only two scenarios (low intensity with average or high match); the incremental cost/QALY relative to TIV was $9980 in the average match scenario and $28,800 in the high match scenario.ConclusionsVaccination of persons aged ≥65 years with aTIV has the potential to provide clinical and economic benefit relative to QIV and TIV. The new model allows the assessment of various alternative strategies for available influenza vaccines.FundingNovartis Vaccines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40121-015-0076-8) contains supplementary...

The combined application of 31P NMR and pH measurements during the tri-isooctylamine-assisted aqueous/organic separation and purification steps after the sulfonation of diphenyl-alkyl-phosphines (Ph2PR; R = Me, n-Bu) and phenyl-dialkyl-phosphines (PhPR2; R = Me, n-Bu) resulted in the preparation of water-soluble alkyl-bis(m-sulfonated-phenyl)- (C6H4-m-SO3Na)2PR; R = Me, n-Bu) and dialkyl-(m-sulfonated-phenyl)- (C6H4-m-SO3Na)PR2; R = Me, n-Bu) phosphines in the presence of less than 0.5% phosphine oxides. When 2 equiv of the water-soluble phosphines were used per rhodium atom, no significant effect on the turnover frequency of the hydrogenation of maleic acid can be observed by using these phosphines.

The publishers of the above mentioned paper have noticed an error in the Acknowledgments section subsequent to publication and would like to make the addition of the following sentence ''This study and the article processing charges for this publication were funded by Novartis Vaccines.'' As such, the revised This study and the article processing charges for this publication were funded by Novartis Vaccines. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval to the version to be published. Medical Writing support for the development of this manuscript was provided by Christopher Dunn and Scott Malkin at Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, Macclesfield, UK. Funding for this support was provided by Novartis Vaccines. Modeling support for the analyses described in this manuscript was provided by MAPI Values, Boston, MA, USA. Funding for this support was provided by Novartis Vaccines.

No abstract